Arguments from most people

Most people fear that they run out of time. They want to enjoy their lives. Many of them are fine with their work, many of them hate it, nevertheless there aren't too many who can say that their work is a cherished part of their lives.

Accordingly, most of them take school, studying, learning, developing skills, work to be toiling, a mild or strong form of suffering, deprivation of the precious time they have so little of to spend on things they like and love.

Since this is so, they don't like to spend their free time on things difficult. (At least, not many of them do. I'm not talking of the few, who enjoy in their free time chess, philosophy, mathematical riddles, reading about biology or learning languages.) And as a result, they never learn and understand many things falling outside the field the help of which they earn their money. This is fair enough, problems only begin when these people, being completely ignorant of how education, science, research, politics or economics work still feel strongly inclined to voice their opinion. And not just to voice, but to be heard, to have an effect on the decision makers. Since the decision makers are politicians who have to take the easiest roots to get good points by the public whose votes they depend on, they like to attack education, educational institutions, academia, culture, etc. Anything, that the average Joe doesn't understand how it turns out more dollars, and helps in making his life-quality better.

As a result one encounters ridiculous arguments in public debate, concerning the role, the function (or the lack of it), the importance, the inner working, etc. of society, education, economy and what not. Many of these arguments are clearly faulty. If one is intelligent to grasp a reading as easy as An Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments (about which see my earlier note) one can also understand how these arguments are rather rhetoric than to the point. They don't help anyone else, then the person uttering them. And even them also in their short sighted pursuit for power. Alas, the ignorance of the masses is not something to lament about. It's a fact we have to live by.

But just for fun I've compiled a list of arguments often put forward, just for fun. Of course the arguments don't run in these forms. The way I put them tries to make explicit what's wrong with them. But you can easily recognize them. Most of them use Philosophy as an example, as it is an especially popular boogie-man these days among the uneducated and the narrow-minded.

1. My knowledge is enough to guide me through my everyday affairs, so all the knowledge that is beyond that is unnecessary. Philosophy makes a lot of claims of re-shaping my knowledge, so it is also unnecessary. I don’t have to know anything I don’t use in my everyday life. (Also, I don't need to accept anyone else's measure of how successful I am in my life.)

2. Most people aren't interested in what philosophers are interested therefore philosophers are wrong.

3. Most people don’t agree with philosophers therefore philosophers are wrong.

4. The conclusions philosophers draw aren't changing what they are explaining therefore they are superfluous.

5. Philosophers don’t use mathematics therefore they are wrong. (Even if they do, they probably don't use for anything interesting.)

6. Philosophers do not apply one methodology and study one field of questions therefore they are stupid.

7. Philosophy hasn't changed in a long time. I don’t know philosophy, but I know this, therefore philosophy is unnecessary.

8. Philosophy is what I think most uneducated people not working in science think therefore it is wrong.

9. Philosophy is something everyone can do without training therefore it is wrong.

10. Philosophers aren't interested in what scientists say therefore they are wrong.

11. Philosophy is not science therefore it is useless.

12. Most people don’t understand philosophy therefore philosophers are talking nonsense. In contrast most people understand mathematics, physics and linguistics without training perfectly, so these are sensible activities.

13. People not working in philosophy don’t know why philosophy is interesting or important, therefore it is neither. Whereas everyone knows without any further thinking or education how useful it is to investigate the big bang, the distant stars, unknown tortoise species, sedatives and game theoretic situations, so these are useful things.

14. Philosophy, and the humanities in general, are about drinking and dreaming. I never studied philosophy or any humanistic discipline and know only people who were unsuccessful undergraduates in these fields, but they are perfectly representative of the fields, therefore they are useless.

15. Bad humanities students cannot explain to me convincingly why their field of study is important.  I don’t understand it either and I lack both education and intelligence to look after it, so they are useless. Whereas building especially fast cars, working out better investment strategies are amazing ways of making life on this planet better and fascinating in themselves.

16. I don’t understand this writing, therefore it is philosophy and therefore philosophy is wrong. (Also, it would claim that this is circular reasoning, which shows even more how wrong it is!)

17. I don’t have time for this, so it cannot be important (although I have time for drinking and/or hiking and/or tv and/or movies ...).

18. It’s hard to get a job with it therefore the people who do it are stupid/therefore it is easy. The clever people are successful and rich, so they must be the doctors, engineers, etc. and everyone else is just not clever enough for those professions.

19. Science makes sense. So, earlier philosophy and religion had to make sense in the same way. There is no other way in which they could have played a part in society and the world. There is no other way for them today either.

20. If philosophy and literature would do a good job there would be less violence, pain, stupidity. But there is a lot, therefore they are not doing a good job. It is not, that people who do philosophy and literature should first become better and then the descriptions which deal with them and their issues would also be better. It is that philosophy and literature should make people better. (The Pamela fallacy.)